Comments on: Fixing the current economic mess

By: AndrewBoldman

AndrewBoldman — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:54:01 +0000

Great post! Just wanted to let you know you have a new subscriber- me!

By: ClydeB

ClydeB — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:14:43 +0000

It is very true that Pete and I agree on several issues, yet there are several where we don’t. His research and attention to detail do a far better job of explaining the population problem than I ever could. Mike Folkerth makes some similar arguements as well, yet I completely disagree with hime of some financial issues.
I wouldn’t have recommended Pete’s book if I were not in general agreement.

By: Stephen Monrad

Stephen Monrad — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:28:47 +0000

ClydeB

I’m working my way through Pete Murphy’s book, “Five Short Blasts”. I need to fully understand his argument to respond to your last post. I believe your point is based on the arguments he makes.

By: ClydeB

ClydeB — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:31:56 +0000

Stephen,
If your take another look, I specifically limit my reference to manufactured goods. This is where the enormous population disparity causes the problem. Our economy subsidizes the payroll in many over populated nations by importing their manufactured goods while they refuse to purchase anything from us that they are able to produce at home.
Calling the effort to achieve some sort of balance in our trade with others can hardly be properly defined as protectionism. By the way, Canada would benefit by a reciprocal trade agreement that called for just such a tariff, while Ireland would be the most seriously affected, followed by Japan and Germany. We are bleeding roughly half a trillion dollars annually to make payroll in foreign countries, and that doesn’t take own unemployment in to consideration.

By: Stephen Monrad

Stephen Monrad — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:12:54 +0000

ClydeB

I agree with everything except perhaps the protectionism. If the US slaps tariffs on imports, other countries will retaliate. Maybe this is okay. The US is big enough that it has the economies of scale needed to produce things efficiently. My only concern would be that the US needs access to foreign resources, oil for a start.

By: ClydeB

ClydeB — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:15:05 +0000

How to fix the system?
The US needs to return to Constitutional government.
Limited in scope as defined in the first 10 amendments.
Our courts should apply the law rather than try to legislate from the bench.
Our legislators should return to the original concept that theirs is a temporary civic service assignment, not a career.
We should limit our political campaign cycle to 6-8 weeks of public appearances and debate with NO TV advertisement allowed.
We should eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax.
We should levy tariffs on all the manufactured goods coming in to the country proportionate to the per-capita disparity with sales to the exporting country.
When all this is in place, we step back, take a bow and congratulate ourselves on a job well done.

By: Stephen Monrad

Stephen Monrad — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:21:48 +0000

I agree that the system needs to be fixed. The question is how.

By: ClydeB

ClydeB — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:18:15 +0000

The present government we have in the US is the founding fathers worst nightmare. Their vision was of a government deathly afraid of the people due to it’s intrinsic weakness. Enumerated powers and structured with checks and balances. What we have is a veritable dictatorship. When the chief executive can fire the CEO of GM, for instance without recourse, we have a central government totally out of control.
Our tax revenue requirements exceed the value of our production if honestly acknowledged. Our entitlements programs have created a populace where the entitled have the power at the ballot box to vote for themselves the assets of the producers. No nation has ever been able to survive that condition.

By: Stephen Monrad

Stephen Monrad — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:23:53 +0000

ClydeB

I think large bureaucracies of any kind have problems. GM and Chrysler are going down in flames despite being private companies. The banks screwed up too. Governments don’t have a monopoly on stupidity.

I believe anarchy would be much worse than even poor democratic governance. Government may get a lot of things wrong. I believe they do, however, get a lot of things right as well.

At a more fundamental level, I don’t believe that individual pursuit of self-interest alone will produce good results for society as a whole. We need to be able to cooperate and work together. I’m willing to give up quite a lot of freedom if the result is that we can work together effectively.

I think the reason many people don’t like government is that we haven’t yet found the best way for it to operate. The answer isn’t to scale back government. I believe we need to press ahead and find ways for it to more effectively strengthen the economy.

By: ClydeB

ClydeB — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:38:41 +0000

I still contend that central government of any stripe is the absolute last resort when it comes to managing anything. Most elected members have no comcept of cause and effect, are accustomed to absolute obiedience from their staffs of ‘yes men and women” and re-election is their primary goal once elected.
The civil servant members of government have the primary goal of keeping their heads down so as not to be noticed when things go wrong. Their secondary goal is quitting time and third is payday.
I’ll take anarchy rather than that much government.
Actually, I’d rather have WalMart in charge day-to-day with UPS or FedEx as backup than the US Congress.